Respondent no.1 acquired a land bearing Khewat no.87, Khatoni no.124, Khasra no.315 measuring 1 bigha 18 biswa.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/selection-and-appointment-of-judicial-officers-in-himachal-pradesh/
Another release deed (no.25504) was executed by respondent no.1 in favour of her son Sunder on the same day in respect of one-half share in the lands bearing Khasra No.315, Khasra No.314 and Khasra No.341.
Accordingly, a prayer was made in the petition under Section 23 for cancellation of the said release deed dated 14 November 2008.
He pointed out that respondent no.1’s son withdrew the appeals preferred by him against the decrees passed in the civil suits filed by respondent no.1 by which release deeds executed in his favour were held to be null and void. His submission is that respondent no.1’s son has joined hands with her and under his pressure that respondent no.1 filed the petition under Section 23.
He submitted that as noted by the Maintenance Tribunal, respondent no.1 filed an affidavit unequivocally stating that she will not transfer by way of gift or release any property in favour of her son or daughter.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate acting as the Maintenance Tribunal under the 2007 Act has invoked the power under Section 23 to declare that the subject release deed was void.
— (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.
For attracting sub-section (1) of Section 23, the following two conditions must be fulfilled: a. Careful perusal of the petition under Section 23 filed by respondent no.1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters of respondent no.1) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to respondent no.1.
In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by respondent no.1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition.
All questions regarding the rights claimed by the intervenor are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.
Case Title: SUDESH CHHIKARA Vs. RAMTI DEVI (2022 INSC 1257)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000174-000174 / 2021
